JAI PARSHAD Vs. RAM SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of two Civil Revision Nos. 1980 and 1983 of 1980 as they have arisen out of the same facts.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the decree of arrears of rent secured by the respondents against him was without jurisdiction and void. Along with that suit he also filed an application under Order 39 Rules land 2, C.P.C. for ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from executing the decree The trial Court dismissed that application and its order was affirmed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, vide order dated August 12, 1980. It is this order which is under challenge in these petitions.

(3.) The lower appellate Court has declined to grant ad interim injunction on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case That is a doubtful proposition but 1 need not give my considered opinion in this regard because the petition must fail on another ground that no irreparable loss is likely to be caused if the ad interim injunction prayed for is not granted. The decree is for the realisation of arrears of rent. The payment of money ordinarily is not considered to be an injury which cannot be compensated later on , if the plaintiff succeeds in the suit. The argument of the Learned Counsel that he has to amend the suit and to pay the court -fee to recover the amount also cannot make the loss irreparable because he can be well compensated on all these counts by the award of costs and the restitution of the amount with interest. No case, therefore, has been made out for interference with the impugned order and these petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs.